February 17, 2008

Genetically modified food: Pros and cons

I've never been a big fan of the idea of GMO's (genetically modified organisms), but if I'm honest, I have to say that has been more of a knee-jerk opinion than a well-informed view.

I'm reading Stolen Harvest: The Hijacking of the Global Food Supply right now, which is offering up a generous helping of the cons of GMO's. I wanted to start getting a better picture of what both sides of the argument are saying so I can develop a better-informed opinion, so I started doing some research.

Here are some of the articles I ran across with outlining the pros and cons of genetically modified food.

Comments

GM, like all technologies, has pro's and cons. In the end, everything has been genetically modified. It may have taken thousands of years to get there, but it did indeed get altered as it bumped and grinded its way through the evolutionary process.
Transportation was modified as well. Theres two side to that technology, as there is to any other. If we fail to embrace change that can bebefit our species, because of the risk (which can and should be addressed) mankind would not be as we know it. Cromagnam man would have broken that fishing pole
he first crafted, which allowed us to pole vault as a species over all
others, by catching a food that was able to process the algae it ate, feeding our cortex with rich omegas 3 fatty acids that we are unable to process ourselves.
In the end, the pole caused us to think of other ways to propel our species, and along the way,problems were associated with each of them. But at least we're still around to recognize that.

I concur with the caution that GE plants and trees planted in open space convey the possibility that the new genes spliced into them will interfere with natural forests. Genetic technology should therefore be restricted to indoors, with containment, and should not be mixed with wild life.

i believe that the countries in poverty should have full access to the technology of genetically modifying plants. the countries that are not in poverty should have restricted, but not abolished, genetically modified organisms. i believe this because it is the poorest countries that will benefit the most from GMO's. the poorest countries have nothing to sell to richer countries in today's competitive worldwide economy, so why not let them have try to get an upper hand. the richer countries should still be able to genetically enhance plants also, just not as much of a number of farms performing these modifications compared to poverty countries. this makes the most sense to me because it is the richer countries that are the ones arguing about vegetation being "organic" and "unorganic." so why not let there be both?